[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3837-3844]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1310
                           CATASTROPHIC CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Ohio). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Schrader) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about 
what has been going on recently. We heard a little colloquy just a 
moment ago with the majority leader and the minority leader talking 
about what is going on in H.R. 1 and some of the catastrophic cuts that 
are being proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I 
spoke earlier during the debate on H.R. 1, and found from 
communications that the people back in my

[[Page 3838]]

district in Oregon are taking it seriously. They are worried that we 
will do the devastating $60 billion worth of cuts within a short, 1-
year time frame that has been universally panned, actually, by experts 
across the country.
  My colleagues and I on the Democratic side have offered alternatives 
that I think are a little more reasonable. We realize, as the gentleman 
from Maryland talked about, we need to make some reductions, but we 
should make them in a serious way, something that will accomplish our 
goals. I think scaring Americans needlessly is inappropriate.
  The cuts they are talking about are not going to happen. The Food and 
Drug Administration, we just passed a food safety bill in the last 
Congress, and they want to cut $240 million below the 2010 level, much 
less implement the Food and Drug Safety Administration work that we 
have asked them to do. USDA would be furloughing inspectors. Our meat 
safety programs would not be safe. We would not be able to have the 
processing plants inspected on a regular basis going forward.
  The ability for some of our small, rural communities to have safe 
drinking water hinges on the wastewater and drinking programs that we 
have, the revolving loan funds that we have here in Congress. Reducing 
the programs as much as Republicans want would cause serious, serious 
problems. It would also eliminate 54,000 engineering, construction, and 
support jobs as a result of this. We need to be adding jobs, not 
subtracting jobs at this point in time.
  We also have State and local grants. We have States back home, and 
our local communities are starving right now. A lot of the budgets are 
out of whack. The worst thing we can be doing is cutting our State 
grant programs which fund the education, public safety, and health care 
needs of our local communities. We should actually be empowering and 
helping them through these tough budget times, and only the Federal 
Government has that ability.
  The firefighter grants are being cut. COPS grants are being cut. Our 
public safety is at serious risk here. I can't believe this is being 
proposed in any serious manner whatsoever. I have to assume it is all 
part of the political theater and part of the campaign still. It is 
time to get off the campaign trail and quit the political circus and 
get back to actually worrying about serious reductions we have to make 
to put our country back in balance, and that means going to other 
programs.
  They are also wanting to cut title 1 grants to school districts. This 
is the one area where the Federal Government actually comes to the aid 
of the local school districts with special ed and IDEA moneys that they 
need to actually make sure that they can deliver those high-cost 
special needs programs to students. We are actually cutting them: $700 
million from the two big formula programs we have here. It is a 4 
percent cut to title 1 programming when our local districts need it the 
most.
  Head Start, a proven, performance-based program to get our kids off 
to a great start and a great education so they don't need the 
remediation that we have to do later on in high school and college. 
They are cutting Head Start 20 percent, so 200,000 children would be 
kicked out of the Head Start program. I don't think that's the way you 
become a world leader. I don't think that is going to help our STEM 
programs do the research and innovation we need.
  Pell Grants. Pell Grants, a commitment we made to American students, 
I think it is really important. Back home in Oregon, I worked very, 
very hard on a scholarship program that actually, with our Federal aid, 
our State aid, scholarship programs, parental involvement, and student 
working at a minimum wage job during the summer full time and during 
the school year part-time, the student could actually graduate from 
college with an undergraduate degree and no more than $13,000 or 
$14,000 in debt. When we take our share of the bargain away by cutting 
the Pell Grant program from our promised level of $5,500 down to 
$4,700, that can make the difference between young men and women 
actually being able to afford that college education so they can 
compete with the best and brightest around the world.
  Job training. It is unbelievable to me that in H.R. 1, our Republican 
colleagues are cutting job training employment services; more than $4 
billion in cuts to job training programs. This is unconscionable, 
folks. This is exactly the time when we need to get these dislocated 
workers back into the workforce. The Trade Adjustment Act cuts are 
unconscionable. We need to make sure that there is an opportunity for 
these folks to retrain, get back in the workforce, pay taxes, and help 
get the economy back on track. Cutting these programs just doesn't make 
any sense.
  They are even cutting Social Security, folks. Pretty amazing. They 
cut the operational budget from $125 million below the 2010 level, and 
$1 billion dollars below the President's requested level for 2011. They 
apparently don't think that we need technology to improve Social 
Security's ability to work with seniors and make sure that they get the 
services they need, to cut down on mistakes and to cut down on the 
fraud and abuse in the benefit programs for our deserving Social 
Security recipients. They don't care. They really don't care. It is 
pretty amazing the range and scope of these cuts.
  We have listened to Ben Bernanke in the Budget Committee say that the 
Republican plan would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in 
this country. Mark Zandi, McCain's economist, he puts a number on it of 
700,000 jobs lost. Goldman Sachs, not exactly a paragon of liberal 
virtue, said it would really hit our GDP, maybe 2 percent.
  We need jobs, we need jobs, we need jobs. We have to be smart how we 
go about this. Right now we need surgical cuts, not the meat ax 
approach that is being proposed by my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle.
  I offered a proposal during the debate that would have cut our budget 
by about $22 billion. It is kind of a nice intermediate approach as I 
see it from where the Senate is and where our colleagues started. It 
also looks at the defense budget. I am a huge supporter of our warriors 
overseas and in this country. They do great things, whether it is a 
local disaster or a serious problem abroad. But we have to look at the 
contracting and the weapons procurement programs. Secretary Gates has 
been very, very clear that there is lots of room, lots and lots of room 
for improvement there.
  I think we need to work on a bipartisan approach. Enough of the 
political theater, frankly, on both sides. It is time to sit down and 
look at the individual programs and services that are most in need for 
this country right now. And until we are willing to sit down and do 
that, we are going to continue to do these 2- or 3-week continuing 
resolutions that make a mockery out of the greatest country in the 
world, funding the Federal Government of the United States of America 2 
weeks at a time. I think there is nothing that makes us look more 
foolish in the world's eyes and in our own constituents' eyes and to 
the folks at home. It is time for us to really move forward.
  There has been a lot of bashing of our public sector employees across 
the Nation. A public sector job is apparently a bad thing. Well, I am 
here to tell you in my corner of the universe in Oregon, the public 
sector employer is oftentimes the biggest employer, and sometimes the 
only employer of any real size in some of these communities. The school 
districts, the school districts in rural Oregon are oftentimes the big 
employer. These are good jobs. These are people, teachers who are 
giving of their time. And, frankly, my wife is a teacher, she is 
working overtime, after hours, putting their own dollars sometimes into 
the kitty to make sure our kids get a great education. The demagoguery 
that goes on of the public sector is, I think, unfortunate and out of 
place here.
  The hospitals in rural parts of our country are oftentimes the 
biggest employer. Oftentimes they are public hospitals; they are not 
private operations. Not-for-profit hospitals, there are a bunch of them 
in Oregon, and they are

[[Page 3839]]

huge employers. That has got to be recognized. Again, the demagoguery, 
I just don't think has any place.

                              {time}  1320

  Right now, I point to a project that's going on along the central 
coast of the great State of Oregon, which is moving the NOAA fleet, the 
Pacific NOAA fleet, down into a small community that has been 
devastated for years, not just by this recent recession, but by over 20 
years of strife. Fishing has been cut back. Fishing grounds have been 
cut back. Timber has been cut back. You can't cut any trees anymore in 
our State. They've been hurting for a long time. The recession has 
added to it. They've tried to go into the tourism business, and that 
has been hit, obviously, with what has gone on in this recession.
  As a result of that, we actually have a very exciting opportunity for 
the Pacific NOAA fleet to come down and regenerate that economy, 
providing thousands of new jobs, with hundreds immediately related to 
the NOAA project, itself. For all the parts, all the remediation, all 
the opportunities to partner in the community, there should be some 
great opportunities, I think, for the central Oregon coast. This would 
all be put in jeopardy because the Commerce budget and the NOAA budget 
are cut.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Would the gentleman yield at this point?
  Mr. SCHRADER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding since he has just 
made a good litany of ill-intentioned potential cuts by the 
Republicans.
  You just mentioned NOAA. I'd like to point out that, as we're 
speaking, we're waiting for the third tidal wave to hit the Oregon 
coast. They're about an hour apart. We should be hit again in about 10 
minutes.
  Now, the reason we know where these waves are, what their amplitude 
is, what the potential for damage is, the reason we were able to 
evacuate those communities last night, and the reason we're online 
right now with our State emergency services people is because of the 
warning buoys we have and because of the great work of the National 
Oceanic Atmospheric Association and the National Weather Service.
  The Republicans have proposed to decimate those programs in H.R. 1. 
So, in the Republican world, when everybody at NOAA is furloughed for 
21 days, if there happens to be an earthquake in Japan and if you live 
on the Pacific Coast or if there are some tornadoes in the Midwest, 
tough luck, sorry. We had to furlough those employees who would have 
warned you to go to your tornado shelter. We had to furlough those 
employees who would have warned you to evacuate the low-lying areas on 
the Oregon-California Coast and in Hawaii. But, no, they have targeted 
massive cuts in the NOAA budget--$450 million. It's estimated that 
NOAA, because of the time of year these would be put in place, would 
have to have 21 days of furloughs for all of its employees. There will 
be $110 million in cuts to the National Weather Service and a big cut 
to State disaster preparedness grants.
  So, right now, our Emergency Operations Centers in Oregon, in 
California, in Hawaii are in full swing. The reason that they're able 
to be in touch with people in scattered coastal communities and in 
relatively difficult areas to access, which could be cut off if the 
waves are bad enough, is because of the Federal assistance that we have 
given to them to set up these centers. Under the Republicans' budget, 
we would cut $206 million from State Emergency Operations Centers.
  Now, where are the States going to get the money in this bad climate? 
I guess those places won't be tended to either.
  So we won't know the tidal waves are coming because they'll have laid 
off the people at NOAA. We won't know the tornadoes are happening. Even 
if we did happen to stumble over that fact despite these cuts, we won't 
have the Emergency Operations Centers to coordinate in order to 
evacuate people and to rescue and to coordinate medical services.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield to me on that same point?
  Mr. SCHRADER. Absolutely.
  Mr. DICKS. Being from Washington State, I am as concerned as the 
gentleman is about the west coast. We have a number of Indian tribes 
that are right down at the coastal waters, and several of them are 
trying to move back because of a tsunami. This is a great wake-up call.
  One of the things I'm worried about are the satellites. We have new 
satellites that we're supposed to be procuring. This program is in some 
trouble, and I'm worried that these cuts are going to affect the 
ability of NOAA to get these satellites in a proper time. They give us 
the warning on major weather fronts. This is another important aspect 
of this. FEMA is another problem.
  I just want to rise to congratulate the two gentlemen from Oregon for 
bringing this to the floor as we watch to see how these tsunamis hit 
the west coast of the United States. I mean, some of the weather 
forecasters have said that this could be a very serious problem, but we 
hope it isn't. I just wanted to associate myself with the remarks that 
have been made here and stress how important the NOAA budget is and the 
importance of getting these satellites replaced in a timely way.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would just yield again.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Indeed.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This all seemed to have started with our former 
colleague, Bobby Jindal, now the Governor of Louisiana, when last year 
or the year before last he made fun of money that was being 
appropriated for volcano monitoring. I'll tell you, actually, that I 
live in a region that has a number of dormant volcanoes--not extinct, 
but dormant--and it is crucial.
  Three Sisters has got a bulge on it. We're watching that all the 
time. There is the potential for a big lahar that could wipe out some 
communities and people downstream. Certainly, up in the Seattle area, 
there are concerns about Mt. Rainier. We have Mt. Hood and others.
  So all of these attacks on emergency services seem to come with all 
of the juice that Bobby Jindal got out of criticizing volcano 
monitoring. Well, I think it's pretty darned important to monitor 
volcanoes, too.
  Mr. DICKS. We've had a volcano. Mount St. Helens erupted and it was 
enormous. I had been told again and again when I was chairman of 
Interior that California has a very complex system of detection. The 
rest of the country doesn't. Washington and Oregon do not have the same 
level of early warning equipment. So I think this is another thing that 
we've got to work on.
  Again, these cuts are going to make it more difficult for us to get 
the equipment that we need to predict and to detect when these things 
are occurring. I worry about Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier could have the 
lahar, and we've been told by USGS that Washington State could have a 
9. This was 8-9, and look at the enormous damage that was done there. I 
mean, we could have another major event in the future. I hope it 
doesn't happen, but it does happen every 300 or 400 years.
  Mr. SCHRADER. It may even be sooner than that.
  I mean, you can't help but note the devastation wrought by the 
earthquake in New Zealand just very recently and now here in Japan. 
This is the Pacific Rim, the volatile Pacific Rim. So I think there are 
a great deal of problems that we've got to be careful of.
  The good Congresswoman from Hawaii is feeling the brunt of it right 
now. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much.
  I thank the two gentlemen from Oregon for bringing this matter to our 
attention.
  I think we make a very serious mistake when, in a fervor to cut 
budgets and to do it in a meat-ax way, we cut the very programs that 
we're going to need to rely upon in times like this, meaning in the 
times of the kind of devastation that has hit Japan. Of course, Hawaii 
is the first U.S. State to be hit with the tidal wave that followed 
that disaster, and it's still playing out. We still haven't done the 
``all clear'' sign in Hawaii, by the way.

[[Page 3840]]

  With the kinds of cuts that we are contemplating in H.R. 1, FEMA is 
going to have a major impact. I also want to say, before I go further, 
that our hearts go out to the people of Japan, and we stand ready to 
assist them in any way. I think that it is so important at a time like 
this that we have the resources to employ the best technology, cutting-
edge equipment, well-trained personnel to respond when these 
emergencies occur.
  In fact, when this tragedy occurred in Japan, they dedicated Federal 
employees at the National Weather Service at a specific tsunami warning 
center, and they were there to provide advance warning to the people of 
our islands. This early warning allowed the Coast Guard, Hawaii State 
Civil Defense, and the other State and county officials to put into 
motion the State's emergency warning response plans.
  This whole thing began to unfold in Hawaii in the very early morning 
hours. I'm just grateful that all of our first responders had 
everything they needed in order to be able to take the appropriate 
action. They had to decide whether or not schools would be open and 
whether public buildings were going to remain open. In fact, they did 
evacuate people in the low-lying areas just to make sure that the 
safety of our people and of our visitors would be protected.
  So, right now, the reports are encouraging in Hawaii. There has been 
some flooding on several islands, but the level of damage, however, 
thankfully, is not severe. There have been no reports of injuries or 
fatalities, but as I mentioned, the ``all clear'' sign is not there 
yet.

                              {time}  1330

  So the kind of cuts to FEMA, we mentioned already the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would have seen its budget cut 
by $454.3 million, including our $126 million cut to the National 
Weather Service. So there goes advance warning.
  The cuts would not have spared the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, either. And according to the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee's analysis, cuts to FEMA and the Coast Guard 
would have totaled $441 million. This includes a $105 million cut to 
the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction and improvement accounts, 
money for ships and equipment to deal with emergencies; a $50 million 
cut to FEMA's Interoperable Emergency Communication Grants program, 
money that helps our first responders get the equipment to communicate 
with each other.
  This was a huge problem when 9/11 occurred, where our first 
responders could not keep track of what was going on, couldn't talk to 
each other. So a $35 million cut to FEMA's predisaster mitigation 
grants, hurting our communities' ability to implement necessary 
prevention measures against threats.
  So we've heard all the time about we should learn to do more with 
less. Well, in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing 
where we had the people from the Coast Guard come to testify, these 
kinds of cuts mean that they really are facing doing less with less. 
And we also hear about how families understand the need to cut. Well, 
when families cut, they do less with less.
  So these kinds of slogans and the kind of meat-ax approach to the 
kinds of cuts we're looking at in H.R. 1 are devastating, and 
especially now when we are once again confronted with a huge, huge 
natural disaster in Japan that can have ramifications particularly on 
Hawaii and the west coast.
  It, again, shows the foolishness of these kinds of massive cuts that 
really disable our ability to deal with these disasters.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. We have some 
breaking news from southern Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, exactly. I just got an email--and I've got to go 
take a phone call in the Cloak Room--but they just announced that some 
heavy waves have come into the harbor at Coos Bay. This would be the 
third period of waves. They say the fourth or the fifth might be the 
worst. The port tells me the docks are breaking apart. Luckily--since 
we had ample warning because we still do have NOAA and we still do have 
buoys before these Republican cuts go into effect--there were no people 
on the docks. At this point we're not aware that anyone has been 
injured. But this is a serious and developing situation. And I would 
expect the gentleman's district just north of mine is probably having a 
similar experience in Newport or other areas.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Well, we're on the phone right now trying to make sure 
that the folks are safe. I do know that schools have been evacuated, 
and the lower elevations that are very flood prone, they've taken 
precautions. Thank goodness, thanks to the comments I've heard from the 
gentlelady from Hawaii and the Congressman from Washington as well as 
my colleague from Oregon, we have some of these programs in place that 
can actually save lives and make sure that the economic infrastructure 
hopefully in the future is not at risk.
  Just this morning I had a visit from Mark Apple with Oregon State 
University talking about a program that's in danger because of these 
cuts, because of the cuts to the National Science Foundation programs, 
along with NIH and anything else that's got research that the 
Republicans are trying to cut away.
  They've got a great project. They've hired 25 people already. They're 
putting buoys on the floor of the ocean and sensing devices to actually 
have real-time monitoring of ocean conditions so we can actually 
anticipate what's going to be happening long before it actually hits 
our coast. We can also plan--plan our fisheries, plan what we need to 
do with ocean acidification that's devastating the oysters up and down 
the Pacific coast and actually in other parts of the world right now.
  The leading research is being done in my district on oyster larva and 
trying to make sure that ocean acidification does not cause a problem. 
That stuff is in danger right now. I don't think some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle understand how important this stuff is. 
So we're going to have to be watching very, very carefully, I think, 
going forward and make sure that there are not these bludgeoning deep 
cuts that are not really smart.
  Where is the discussion about the duplicative programs? We just had a 
great GOP report. I've heard a lot of posturing on the other side. 
Where is it? It's not included in H.R. 1. I mean, look at this. In 
Afghanistan and Iraq we've got USAID programs and Department of Defense 
rebuilding the country. There's not even a centralized data system that 
tracks U.S. funds used. I mean, that's crazy. Why aren't we looking at 
that? Why isn't that part of what we're working on?
  Our domestic food assistance programs. There are 18 different 
programs. I want to see something in a budget resolution or a proposal 
going forward that talks about streamlining some of this stuff, that 
the data collection, the administration of these programs you can save 
millions and millions--perhaps billions of dollars. And here is a 
quote: ``Little is known of the effectiveness of some of these programs 
because they have not been well studied.''
  Job training. I talked about job training. They're taking a meat ax 
to it. There are 47 programs in job training. Let's get those organized 
so we can leverage the limited dollars we're going to be able to put 
forward in these tough economic times.
  Same thing for transportation for the disadvantaged, 80 different 
programs; laudable, but let's get together on this. Again, there 
doesn't need to be 80 different programs. Where are my colleagues' 
concrete proposals? They're in charge; they're the majority party. 
Where are their concrete proposals to improve this, for goodness sakes?
  Military health, veteran services. We've got to do right by our men 
and women who have served this country through times good and times 
bad. Our responsibilities are distributed so far widely we can't even 
get critical procurement centralized opportunities that would save 
billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars.
  We also have a situation where the Department of Defense now, if they 
conveniently need some money, rather

[[Page 3841]]

than go through appropriate channels, they have urgent needs processes 
for developing, modifying and fielding new military capabilities. Well, 
that's being abused, folks. GAO found eight entities that respond to 
them, five for counter-IED technologies, and they have no way of 
tracking the system for this program, no way of tracking metrics for 
this program. Must be nice to be able to spend the taxpayers' money 
with no accountability.
  I was at a dinner the other night working on some budget issues, and 
it came out that when the Department of Defense was asked about 
contracting--how many civilian folks do you have under contract, how 
many people are you contracting with--their answer was, somewhere 
between 1 million and 10 million. I mean, that's a big range, folks; 
that's a big range.
  The Department of Defense has no clue as to how and what they're 
doing. Where is that money being spent? We cannot afford rampant, 
undisciplined--unauditable has been the term used--spending in the 
Department of Defense. They're supposed to report their budget 
annually, come in with a coherent budget. It has been determined that 
it is unauditable, folks. I mean, we talk about the domestic side--and, 
yes, there are certain things we can do, as I'm talking about here, to 
improve the programs, but it's also on the defense side that we've got 
to get our act together.
  Let's talk about economic development. I mean, we want to make sure 
we're getting the biggest bang for the buck here. We have 80 different 
economic development programs spread through Commerce, HUD, USDA, Small 
Business Administration. I mean, it's all good that we're doing that, 
but let's have some centralized opportunities. Let's leverage the 
resources.
  In my home State of Oregon when I was budget chair, we would see the 
Federal Government's money come in. It was all different programs tied 
with all these little strings. It made it very difficult for my local 
agencies and my local communities to use the money. Very, very 
inflexible. And that's got to end. We've got to break down these silos, 
allow people to work across the spectrum so that we can get the biggest 
bang for the buck.
  I would also point out that in our surface transportation programs we 
work really hard trying to keep America competitive. In H.R. 1, there 
are huge cuts to the transportation budget. If we're going to be 
competitive going forward like we were after World War II when 
Eisenhower, a Republican President, and Congress put together a secure 
highway fund, realizing that our security depended on having interstate 
highways that were connected, you could travel at a reasonable rate, we 
need to be thinking along those same lines now.
  If they were worried about the cost of that program and not the 
security of this country or the economic benefits, it would never have 
gotten off the ground. I mean, this is a capital program. And, again, 
my colleagues across the aisle don't seem to understand the difference 
between an operational budget and a capital budget.

                              {time}  1340

  We need to be making infrastructure investments right now.
  There is an opportunity for America, probably a narrow window--I'd 
say the next 10 years--for us to be competitive going forward with the 
rest of the world. Right now, the developing nations that are pretty 
developed, like China, India, they're developing 21st century 
infrastructure. We're still dealing with a 20th century infrastructure, 
and that's not going to cut it, colleagues. That's just not going to 
get the job done.
  We've got to be thinking about making the strategic investments so 
our businesses can be competitive worldwide around the globe.
  Right now, there's a new enterprise in my home State of Oregon on the 
coast that's currently under siege through the natural disasters where 
they're actually trying to export Dungeness crab--the best crab in the 
world, with no disrespect to my colleagues from Maryland. But the best 
crab in the world comes from the Pacific coast, the north coast, if you 
will, Dungeness crab.
  They're now able to export live crab to China. But the hurdles to go 
through to get there are almost insurmountable. That was started back 
in 2003. They tried to get a program going. And because of the 
difficulties in transporting and some of the bureaucratic redtape to go 
through that, it didn't work.
  They have now come up with a much more viable program for a whole new 
industry to really export to China. Instead of China exporting here and 
hurting our jobs, we're creating jobs in the Pacific Northwest and 
exporting high-quality products to China. We need more of that sort of 
innovation going forward. That's the type of investment in 
infrastructure.
  We shouldn't have to ship it to Vancouver, B.C., to get it over there 
on a direct flight. We should be able to have a direct flight from 
Portland, Oregon, to make that actually happen.
  So I think we're missing the boat here in terms of what we're trying 
to effect and the issues I think that we're dealing with in this H.R. 
1. We're trying to hit only domestic programs, programs that our kids 
depend on. Penalizing the kids of the future.
  Oftentimes, I hear my colleagues across the aisle talking about we've 
got to worry about our kids and our grandkids. I see the photos brought 
to the floor. Well, let's worry about our kids and grandkids and 
support the education programs I talked about earlier. Let's support 
the early health care prevention programs that were in the health care 
bill last Congress, make sure our kids don't suffer from the same 
problems that are debilitating obese Americans right now.
  I mean, we know that prevention is important. We must be funding 
prevention. We need the innovation to come up with the programs to make 
sure that our chronic diseases are under control. The health care cuts 
in H.R. 1 are unbelievable. I know it's politically their big mantra to 
roll back or repeal health care reform, but folks, that is the wrong 
way to go right now. Our health care system is broken. We desperately 
need some help.
  I welcome my colleague from the north coast of Oregon.
  Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman, my friend, and the adjoining 
Representative on my southern border and my colleague from the State of 
Oregon.
  We rise together, and I rise today to recognize the tremendous 
tragedy that has struck Japan early this morning. This tragedy follows 
on other tragedies similar in nature that affected Chile earlier this 
year and Haiti in the very recent past.
  We in the Pacific Northwest feel a special connection to these events 
because we have the Cascadia fault off the coast of Washington, Oregon, 
and northern California. And about a 250-mile stretch of the Cascadia 
fault is locked tight. With great regularity since the last Ice Age 
12,000 years ago--the furthest back that we can reach in our studies--
this fault locked up, has snapped and created earthquakes of 9.0 
magnitude, very similar to the 8.9 Richter scale-magnitude earthquake 
that struck Japan early this morning.
  Our hearts go out to the Japanese people and to their friends and 
relatives who are here in the United States.
  We have an obligation, and we have an ability to mitigate these 
problems, to plan for them, and to reduce the risk to the American 
people and to Oregonians. My All Hazards legislation passed in the last 
Congress addresses these risks in a comprehensive way. By uniting the 
risks of fire, wind, flood, and earthquakes we can better allocate 
scarce resources in this era of scarce resources so that we can get a 
better buy on the Federal dollar.
  Different agencies are involved in reducing the risk of earthquake. 
We know about FEMA and how it can do a great job and how it can do a 
poor job. FEMA is primarily engaged in the business of recovering from 
natural disasters, and it is part of the All Hazards legislation that I 
passed last session.
  NIST, one of the agencies under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee 
which I chaired last Congress, NIST is in the

[[Page 3842]]

business of prevention, of researching what causes building failure, of 
doing model codes, of promulgating model codes so that the local and 
State building codes can encourage and, indeed, require more 
earthquake-resistant buildings and, indeed, also other infrastructure 
such as rail lines, bridges, and airports. These are all important 
infrastructure that in Chile survived to a decent extent.
  With the severe earthquake in Japan, even with Japan's high 
standards, a remarkable number of structures are currently 
incapacitated, and we can do better and we will do better by adequately 
supporting these very important research and standard-setting agencies.
  Furthermore, an agency that Mr. Schrader talked about, NOAA, that is 
going to bring jobs to Oregon. And an important part of Mr. Schrader's 
congressional district, but important to the whole Northwest and to our 
Nation, indeed, NOAA does a crucial service by helping to support 
education, educating not just our young people but all citizens about 
earthquakes and especially tsunami.
  It is these people just out of college who are funded with 
fellowships, and they call together sessions--and I've seen these 
sessions convene in our State of Oregon--and they educate the residents 
about how to reduce their risk, how to behave during an earthquake, how 
to evacuate and the best routes to take to escape the follow-on 
tsunami. These are crucial activities to surviving an earthquake and 
the earthquake's natural consequence off our coast, a tsunami.
  And it's not just the residents of the coast, because the population 
of the coast is swelled several times by inland residents who come to 
Oregon's beautiful shoreline. And those students and those adults also 
need this education so that, instead of going out to the shore to look 
at a receding waterline, which many people in Indonesia did--you know, 
it's a natural curiosity; right? And you don't necessarily know that a 
tsunami is about to follow.
  This kind of education is so you know to head for high ground right 
now. Don't delay. As soon as the ground stops moving, head for high 
ground. This inexpensive education will save lives. It's what has been 
done in some parts of the world, and it has saved lives. It hasn't been 
done in other parts of the world, and the casualty figures reflect it.
  The All Hazards legislation which I was able to pass in the last 
Congress knits these different components together: NOAA for education 
purposes; NIST to set standards, to do research, to prevent building 
collapses and bridge collapses and other collapses which cost us money 
and business downtime; FEMA to recover from that damage which occurs. 
These are crucial things to do, and we know what the price of inaction 
is.
  This government has responded heroically and well when minimal, 
appropriate investments are made. And when those investments aren't 
made, when the preparing agencies aren't prepared themselves, then we 
have something like Katrina, where American citizens were found 
floating face down in the dark waters of New Orleans. We should never, 
ever fail Americans in that manner again.
  And Mr. Schrader and Mr. DeFazio and I, we'll be darned if we're 
going to let Oregonians suffer the way that some Americans have had to. 
Making these small-dollar investments today, we'll save lives tomorrow.

                              {time}  1350

  It's the smart thing to do. It's the wise thing to do. It's the right 
thing to do. Pinch pennies and pound foolish will cost us lives.
  Today's tragic earthquake and tsunami that brought devastation to 
Japan was a stark reminder of the importance of disaster preparedness 
for Oregon's coastal communities.
  Over half of people in the United States reside in coastal areas, and 
billions of dollars of commercial and recreational activity depend on 
healthy oceans and coasts.
  The efficiency of tsunami response efforts this morning in Oregon, 
Hawaii, and elsewhere demonstrates the hard work that community 
officials have already put toward tsunami preparation.
  At the same time, we must be ready for the kind of disaster scenario 
that Japan faced this morning, one that presents much shorter warning 
times and a devastating ocean surge.
  Local officials are doing their part, but the federal government has 
a critical role to play in hazards preparation and response efforts.
  Without continued federal funding for ocean observation, seafloor 
modeling, and projects that build the infrastructure for withstanding 
ocean surge, the next tsunami could be devastating to vulnerable ocean 
communities.
  All of the federal R&D agencies, even if it's not their primary 
mission, have a hand in hazard preparation and response. For example, 
in the aftermath of last year's devastating earthquake in Haiti, NASA 
used their satellites and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to predict where 
mudslides were going to occur.
  Our thoughts today are with the people of Japan, who have suffered 
widespread loss of life and destruction of property. Oregonians and all 
Americans stand ready to assist the Japanese people in rebuilding and 
recovery efforts.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I thank the gentleman from the north coast of my great 
State of Oregon for his comments. They're right on the money, and I 
very appreciated his time.
  I would now like to yield some time to the gentlelady from Hawaii, 
our new Member. Welcome.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, both gentlemen from Oregon.
  I would like to first begin by extending heartfelt condolences to the 
people of Japan, and they should all know that we will stand by them as 
they work to recover from this tragic disaster. But I would also like 
to say thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have 
come up to me today and they've asked a single question. Is everything 
all right at home? Is your family all right? Do you have family in 
Japan? It didn't matter whether one was an R or one was a D. Those 
concerns were extremely genuine.
  As I walked over here, the Capitol guard asked me, Ms. Hanabusa, is 
everything okay at home? And then it struck me what this is all about. 
We are people, and we are always going to be there to help others.
  We must also look at why Hawaii has really been prepared for these 
kinds of disasters. I do congratulate both the Pacific Tsunami Warning 
Center, as well as our officials back home who did an excellent job 
preparing. But I would also like people to consider what it cost and 
how we were able to come here.
  Remember when the good Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, did that 
unspeakable thing, that earmark called the Pacific Tsunami Warning 
Center. And, yes, it was an earmark. He had the foresight, as only, for 
example, like my good colleagues from Oregon and people who represent 
their districts, to know what that district needs and started way back 
when with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. And that has grown. If 
you watched the news this morning, as I did from 3 o'clock in the 
morning, you could hear them saying, our projections are this, we're 
looking at what's going on, and we think it's going to be about 2 feet. 
We got those projections before they hit Hawaii. You know what? They 
were right. What do we have to attribute to that? The fact that there 
was wisdom and there was funding and there was the recognition that a 
Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was essential.
  It's not only for Hawaii. It's for the whole Pacific. When they 
wanted information of what it meant for Guam, what it meant in Japan, 
what it meant for the west coast, who was the expert? The Pacific 
Tsunami Warning Center. It is unfortunate that in H.R. 1 it stands 
massive cuts. It is also unfortunate that people look upon it like it's 
``that earmark'' and therefore should be cut.
  I ask my same colleagues on both sides who said, Is everything all 
right at home, to realize that and to recognize that the one way you 
can help protect not only the people of the State of Hawaii, but the 
west coast, as well as anyone in the Pacific Rim, is to set aside 
labels and to recognize that it is funding like that that goes to save 
lives. That is what we can rely upon.
  So when we remember this unfortunate and tragic day, let us also 
remember how fortunate we were because we

[[Page 3843]]

had information and we were prepared, and how inexpensive being 
prepared is when you look at the investments that have been made. Thank 
you very much.
  Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate the very kind remarks. Indeed, our hearts 
go out to the people of Japan, much like they did in New Zealand. Very 
concerned about the health and welfare. I am sure this country will 
come to their aid like it does in any disaster, and like a lot of our 
friends did when we suffered similar consequences, whether it's Katrina 
or the horrible attacks on 9/11. We have had our brothers and sisters 
around the world come to our aid, and I appreciate that.
  I would ask how much time we have left in the hour, if I may.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHRADER. To follow on the gentlelady's remarks, I think there 
are areas where we can get together. The illusion that cutting the 
domestic budget for this country, the discretionary budget, is going to 
solve our woes and put us back in financial balance and avoid the 
Armageddon that's somewhat before us is a horrible illusion. I don't 
think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really believe 
that's going to be solving any of our problems. Even the defense 
reductions that I talked about that are targeted to increase the 
efficiency of the Department of Defense and make sure our warriors get 
what they really need, even including the defense budget, it's not 
going to be getting at the root cause of our debt and deficit problems.
  As we all know, those two, domestic and defense discretionary 
expenses, only account for about 30 percent of the budget for the 
American people. The bulk of it is tied up in other areas. Our Tax Code 
is shown to be extremely inadequate. We are collecting revenues now at 
an all-time low. Yes, some of it's the recession; but it's also because 
we give away more in tax breaks than we actually spend on domestic and 
defense programs in this country in the discretionary budget. Yes, $1.2 
billion given away in tax expenditures. We spend money on these tax 
breaks. It's spending money by giving away all these breaks.
  We need to broaden our tax base, quite frankly, and reduce the rates. 
I think if we're going to get real about solving our budget problems, 
we need to begin to embrace some of the recommendations, if not the 
package that the fiscal commission the President set up last year, we 
need to embrace those recommendations in some form. This is the real 
meat of the issue, colleagues. This is where the rubber meets the road. 
If we do not actually have the guts, the political courage to step up 
and deal with some of these problems, we are mortgaging our children 
and grandchildren's future.
  In the last Congress, much was said about the health care reform. No 
matter how you feel about that bill, and I said this again and again at 
town halls back home, no matter how you feel about the bill, you should 
be in favor of the $500 billion in savings in the Medicare budget. 
These are long overdue. A lot of these things weren't new. They had 
been proposed one Congress after another, but no political will, no 
political courage to step up and try and take them on.
  I think it's important for Americans to understand and respect their 
leaders, that the people in this body, in this Chamber, and in our 
sister Chamber across the Capitol Rotunda, that we're willing to step 
up and make these tough decisions. I don't think anyone wants to pay 
hospitals for preventible readmissions. I think everyone wants to make 
sure that the repayment system for our hospitals and our doctors is as 
efficient as possible. I think everyone wants to make sure that 
fraudulent companies are not taking advantage of seniors in the 
Medicare or Social Security system. I think people ought to see our 
Medicare and support system, our safety net system, if you will, 
protected. It's really important that we have that opportunity and that 
we make these tough decisions.
  If we're not going to look at tax reform, we're not going to look at 
Social Security, we're not going to look at Medicare, Medicaid, other 
mandatory savings in the budget, we will have missed the boat. I think 
the people back home get it. I think the only people that don't get it 
are the people in Congress. It's time that we step up and make some 
tough decisions and show these people we have some backbone.
  There is this little waiting game going on here in Congress right 
now. I will show a little of my hand if you show a little of your hand. 
That's fine. I understand everyone wants their ``political cover,'' but 
it takes leadership, people willing to step up and embrace some of the 
solutions that are already on the table.
  I think there are ways you can do it without causing problems. 
Indeed, I think you can actually solve problems. You know, I think we 
need spending caps. We did PAYGO in the last Congress. We only did half 
of PAYGO. We only dealt with mandatory spending. We need to have the 
spending caps that were in place when a Democratic President and a 
Republican Congress instituted PAYGO in the mid-nineties. If we put 
that in place, then we have real, real control on our domestic and 
defense spending.
  I think if we are going to do reductions, we should prioritize both. 
Equal cuts in defense and domestic spending, at least for the first few 
years here. We can at least make sure that there is an opportunity for 
both sides, if you will. Both sides of the aisle have different 
priorities, I respect that, but let's treat them equally.

                              {time}  1400

  I think that the draconian cuts of $60 billion or $100 billion in the 
President's recommended budget are too draconian. I am worried smarter 
people than I, as I alluded to earlier in my remarks, have talked about 
how devastating that would be. We can get to the same result--rolling 
back to 2008 levels--if that's where we want to go by approaching it in 
a thoughtful way. The fiscal commission talks about gradually reducing 
it so that we are at those levels by 2013, and then allowing 
inflationary increases only. Again, the spending caps would help us.
  In the tax reform arena I don't think there is anybody that doesn't 
want to have their taxes reduced. I would love to see my tax rates go 
down. Right now, the effective rate for a lot of folks, when you add in 
the State and local taxes, is nearly 50 percent in my corner of the 
world. You know, that's terrible.
  If we were able to get rid of the tax breaks, get rid of all of the 
giveaways that we have out there, we could actually reduce the tax 
rates almost in half. We could reduce our corporate tax rate down to at 
least 29 percent. Then we would be a little competitive with the rest 
of the world. There wouldn't be maybe quite so much overseas offshoring 
of American jobs. It would be more palatable, more appealing to keep 
these jobs and these businesses and these plants here in America so we 
could have Made in America products going overseas instead of importing 
everything from China or India.
  I think if we were to reform the Tax Code along the lines that I am 
talking about, and that I see in some of the fiscal commission reports, 
that we could actually use some of that savings to reduce our deficit, 
seriously, going forward, reducing the deficit on an ongoing basis. Now 
I am not proposing necessarily that we reduce or get rid of all tax 
expenditures over the long haul. We should have an opportunity to add 
back for set periods of time with specific sunsets targeted tax 
expenditures that help our economy or help those most in need of our 
help. I think that's the more thoughtful discussion we need to have 
going forward that's missing so far.
  Social Security. Social Security is going to be gone, cut benefits, 
25 percent in about 25 years if we do nothing. So if you don't care 
about Social Security, don't do anything. Don't do anything. That's 
what we are doing right now. We are not doing anything.
  If you care about Social Security, I mean, I have friends, I have 
friends that are 30 and 40 years old, and they don't expect Social 
Security to be there when they get of age. And I don't think people 
already know Social Security's age for full benefits is 67. It's not 
65. That was changed back during the Reagan years.

[[Page 3844]]

  We could do some pretty smart fixes here. The commission talks about 
raising the retirement age to 69, over 65 years gradually. I know it's 
going to feel that, we are not going to affect the seniors right now. 
The seniors right now, full benefits, fully protected. Even those about 
to become seniors, full benefits just right now.
  But if you raise that age to 69 over 25 years or over 65 years, I 
think that's a pretty good deal if that helps keep Social Security 
solvent. The payroll tax originally was set up to be roughly 90 percent 
of payroll. It's down to about 85 and scheduled to go down to about 82 
percent of the payroll out there. That's not the way the system was 
designed.
  The system was designed to work at a higher level. If we just go back 
to that same payroll level that's subject to the same payroll tax to 
fund Social Security, it helps keep it in balance. And there is early 
means testing. I mean, I have to admit as a new Member of Congress, a 
hardworking, small business guy, I was not focused on Social Security. 
But in Congress it's a big, big thing, and I am getting close enough to 
where it becomes a personal issue.
  I did not know Social Security is already means tested. The 
commission suggests a little tweaking of that to make sure the poorest 
of the poor still get good benefits and get maximum needs taken care 
of. They add another bracket, if you will, in Social Security.
  And with those three simple little things, with some hardship 
exclusions, obviously, for people in tough, labor-intensive jobs, we 
can make sure that Social Security is protected for the next 75 years 
as opposed to going away or seeing a 25 percent reduction in just 25 
years.
  There are smart things we can do, folks. We already started down the 
road to being smart in our Medicare program. There is discussion of 
Medicaid. I don't think voucher programs or privatizing have any place 
in this discussion. But there are smarter ways that we can come 
together on, Republicans and Democrats, working together to really get 
at taking care of our country's deficit needs. We can reduce our debt, 
the deficit, dramatically in the near term if we just pay attention to 
what I have talked about here.
  Let's get off the H.R. 1 bandwagon, the political theater, the circus 
that's consuming a lot of taxpayer dollars and really not moving this 
country forward. Let's begin the dialogue right here, right now about 
taking care of the big cost drivers, the big spending items that are 
affecting our future and our children and grandchildren's future.

                          ____________________